Willravel

Well, like I said, we are talking about statistics here. The odds are that I would have responded now, but I could have read the post and decided to check back later to see if Filtherton reposts. I might not have tripped on my rug when I walked in the door from work today. I did trip, but there are odds that I might not have tripped. If you believe in time streams, all things that can happen do happen, but we'll leave that alone for the purpous of this conversation.
If the victim was made of steel, the he have survived. If the man with a gun had a stroke, the victim might have survived. Having a gun is just another variable, no more important than the next. It does not validate or invalidate your ascertion that the situation above shows that guns can protect people.
As usual we are talking about a hypothetical situation in which the outcome of the story above might have been changed by our variables. The man is dead, saying "if he had a gun..." is moot. He didn't have a gun. Before the moment of death, there were many different variables that could have effected the outcome, be the variable the victim having a gun or the robber being hit by lightning.
It's no more or less relevent than having a gun. The man obviously didn't have a gun, and he died. What I am saying is that putting those two facts together - the victim dying, and the victim not having a gun - does not prove your point; the point that guns save people.
The 60s I suppose. I'm not sure why the 60s created such a fundamental change here in hippyland, but not there in Texas. Maybe it's because we in California are closer to Vietnam, geographically.